N.B.A. Union Is Expected to Fire Hunter

By HOWARD BECK

February 15, 2013

HOUSTON — Billy Hunter’s 16-year stewardship of the N.B.A. players union is likely to end Saturday afternoon in a hotel conference room where more than 30 players are expected to gather, deliberate and ultimately fire their longtime executive director.

Hunter, 70, will not be present to defend himself when his fate is decided.

He was accused of nepotism and a wide range of questionable business practices in a 469-page independent audit released last month. Hunter is also under investigation by the United States attorney’s office, the Labor Department and New York’s attorney general.

Hunter, who was suspended and placed on paid leave on Feb. 1, has accused union leaders of denying him due process. His lawyers have indicated that they will fight to enforce his contract, which calls for Hunter to be paid about $10.5 million over the next three and a half years.

Union officials effectively denied Hunter’s request to attend the meeting, infuriating his lawyers, who called the process, including his potential dismissal, “unfair and invalid.”

Union representatives said Friday that no decision had been made about whether to invite Hunter, a claim Hunter’s lawyers decried as false.

“On every call, I have raised this issue of attending with their lawyers, and they have said consistently: you can continue assuming you are not coming,” Michael Carlinsky, one of Hunter’s lawyers, said in a statement.

The outcome of Saturday’s meeting is not considered to be in doubt. A number of people monitoring the situation, including players, agents and other stakeholders, believe that the player representatives will vote overwhelmingly to oust Hunter, who has served as the union chief since July 1996.

As many as 50 players are expected to attend Saturday’s meeting, during which they will also elect a new executive committee. The vote on Hunter will involve the 30 player representatives (one from each team) and possibly the current members of the interim executive committee. An outside accounting firm will run the election to ensure compliance with union bylaws and legal statutes.

Billy Hunter, 70, has not been invited to Saturday’s meeting, and his lawyers are assuming that he will not be permitted to attend.

Frank Franklin Ii / Associated Press

The players will also hear a presentation from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the law firm that conducted the audit.

Unable to state his case in person, Hunter and his lawyers on Friday released a lengthy rebuttal to the audit, denying that Hunter broke any laws or violated any union policies.

The points raised in the rebuttal are similar to those that Hunter and his lawyer made in an interview last week. They note that the law firm’s report, which they say cost $5 million to produce, found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or embezzlement.

In a statement, Carlinsky wrote dismissively of the firm’s audit, saying it “can best be characterized as one law firm’s judgment by hindsight, with which we respectfully disagree.”

Hunter’s legal team is also contesting the audit’s assertion that Hunter’s contract is unenforceable. Investigators from the union’s law firm concluded that Hunter’s most recent contract was never properly approved by the player representatives, rendering it invalid. They concluded that the players could therefore fire Hunter without cause and without having to pay him.

Hunter has said that none of his previous contract renewals were subject to a full vote. The most recent extension, executed in 2010, was signed by the union president, Derek Fisher. According to Hunter’s lawyers, the deal is valid under Delaware law, where the union is incorporated.

“Under Delaware law, at the moment that Mr. Hunter’s contract extension was executed by the parties, a valid and enforceable contract existed,” Hunter’s lawyers said in their rebuttal.

The lawyers protested that Hunter was never allowed to cross-examine the 37 witnesses, many of them anonymous, interviewed by the law firm or to “assess their credibility.”

In the rebuttal, Hunter’s lawyers claimed that the audit “is rife with inaccuracies with respect to hiring, vacation payout, investment strategy and other business practices.”

The lawyers also hinted at the likely legal battle ahead, saying, “We stand ready to press his claims in the appropriate forum.”